Then there is the enterprising heathen who sells a subscription pet-care service for those who fear they'll be leaving Fido behind at any moment. So he offers a future service for present payment... that's quite the business model. Hopefully, he has managed to avoid being classified as being in the insurance business.

Then there is the enterprising heathen who sells a subscription pet-care service for those who fear they'll be leaving Fido behind at any moment. So he offers a future service for present payment... that's quite the business model. Hopefully, he has managed to avoid being classified as being in the insurance business.

Then there is the enterprising heathen who sells a subscription pet-care service for those who fear they'll be leaving Fido behind at any moment. So he offers a future service for present payment... that's quite the business model. Hopefully, he has managed to avoid being classified as being in the insurance business.

As they're not there, they wont have any recourse when they rapture?

And clearly he must hire heathens or atheists as pet caretakers, since all the good Xtians will be raptured away. Do those rapture-ready folks understand that atheists could be caring for Fido when they are gone?

--------------Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mindHas been obligated from the beginningTo create an ordered universeAs the only possible proof of its own inheritance. - Pattiann Rogers

batshit77 has now discovered Corny's blog and is doing a system dump of megabytes of his C&Ped tard.

--------------"Science is what got us to the humble place weâ€™re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

Just throwing this out here, but if your worldview causes you to say something like:

Quote

How is it that theists of diverse creed (present company excluded) and atheists can agree on this?===Because they hold the same religious views about god, regardless of whether they are theists or atheists.

Maybe you should step back, have a beer, and think things over.

This from a Hunter thread, where he starts with quoting Popper via Scientific American (for a PhD, he loves him the pop literature), flies in the face of Popper, into an attack on methodological naturalism of sorts:

Quote

“so what’s your alternative?” it is implicit that god must not be the answer. That answer is dismissed out of hand, for it has long since been falsified

Denies having said this, admits having said this, then decides:

Quote

"There's nothing wrong with MN, in biology or any other area of science"

We get into an argument about Cornelius' claim that saying god is a falsified hypothesis of evolution is identical to saying god is a non-falsifiable hypothesis not considered by science, to which he replies:

"I said "distinction without a difference," not "identical.""

WTF does that mean?

I swear, Cornelius has invented an opposite-day philosophy where science=religion, theism=naturalism (but MN is fine), atheism~theism. It's quite challenging to argue with him....

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

It's getting to be quite the retard convention over there. Wonder if any more of the regular UD asswipes like Clive will wander over too. UD is turning into a ghost town.

--------------"Science is what got us to the humble place weâ€™re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

Seriously guys, 24 hours and no response? That's a long time for these threads. Anyone want to take a stab at it? Nat? Cornelius? Even Joe?

It's essentially the same thing you ask us to demonstrate in every single blog post. Surely you can demonstrate why lightning isn't designed. I mean unless your belief that lightning isn't designed is based solely on your metaphysical bias towards naturalism, and therefore lightning can't be the product of intelligence. Religion drives meteorology and it matters.

So far that remains the last post.

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

Seriously guys, 24 hours and no response? That's a long time for these threads. Anyone want to take a stab at it? Nat? Cornelius? Even Joe?

It's essentially the same thing you ask us to demonstrate in every single blog post. Surely you can demonstrate why lightning isn't designed. I mean unless your belief that lightning isn't designed is based solely on your metaphysical bias towards naturalism, and therefore lightning can't be the product of intelligence. Religion drives meteorology and it matters.

So far that remains the last post.

Can we give Derek a Post of the Week from over here? That was beautiful.

--------------"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

Gary: Of course most Darwinians reject the application of probabilities to their inane theory.

This is going to hurt.

Quote

Joe Felsenstein: trained in theoretical population genetics, the application of mathematics to changes in populations. This involved a lot of methods for calculating probabilities. In 1981 I published the first bibliography of papers in that field, finding 7,982 papers had been published by then. By now it is maybe another 4,000-5,000. At least a large minority concern stochastic processes, using Markov chains or Kolmogorov's Backward Equation. We use probabilities -- a lot.

Slimy Sal Cordova has now added his rancid bullshit wrapped in faux-politeness to the mix.

Things are getting good!

--------------"Science is what got us to the humble place weâ€™re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

In vain Thorton tried to point out that in science, there is a difference between proof and evidence.Now it's Peter's turn:

Quote

... To verify a scientific claim you need proof. Evolution has none. At least you are honest on that point. No one believes that the earth is flat because it has been proven by photographs from space. ...

Of course, prior to that it was perfectly legimate to believe in a flat earth. And any day now, we could find out that those photographs were 'shopped, like they did about the landing on the moon.